Courtroom Observation Report
Judges can alleviate much of the public dissatisfaction with the judicial branch by paying critical attention to the key elements of procedural fairness: voice, neutrality, respectful treatment, and engendering trust in authorities. Judges must be aware of the dissonance that exists between how they view the legal process and how the public before them view it. While judges should definitely continue to pay attention to creating fair outcomes, they should also tailor their actions, language, and responses to the public’s expectations of procedural fairness. By doing so, these judges will establish themselves as legitimate authorities; substantial research suggests that increased compliance with court orders and decreased recidivism by criminal offenders will result. Procedural fairness also will lessen the difference in how minority populations perceive and react to the courts. Hon. Kevin Burke, Minnesota District Court, Hennepin County, and Hon. Steve Leben, Kansas Court of Appeals “Procedural Fairness: A key ingredient in public satisfaction,” Court Review

This observation report has two parts. The first part centers on the four principles of procedural justice: neutrality, respect, trust, and voice. For each principle, we ask a question and request three responses: (a) check which behaviors you observed, (b) describe the judge’s performance on the bench, and (c) score the judge on that principle. We’ve provided a brief description of each principle. Please base all of your responses on the judge’s behaviors which you observed while in court. Do not expect to see all the sample behaviors each time you observe in court.
Select a score based on the following standards: 1 = inadequate performance 2 = substandard performance 3 = acceptable performance 4 = very good performance 5 = outstanding performance

The second part of this observation report asks additional, more general questions and provides an opportunity for other comments on your experience in this judge’s court.

Judge’s name: Court location: Date of observation:

________________
First and

_________________________ last ________________________________
City or county

______________________________________

Part I Neutrality
People bring their disputes to the court because they view judges as neutral, principled decision makers who make decisions based upon rules and not personal opinions, and who apply legal rules consistently across people and over cases. Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review

1. How would you describe this judge’s ability to be neutral, principled and consistent?
Consider for example:
Yes

o o o o o o

The judge clearly articulated awareness of the practical impact on the parties of the judge’s rulings, including the effect of delay and increased litigation expense. The judge displayed judicial fairness and impartiality toward all parties. The judge applied rules consistently across people and over cases. The judge clearly explained the reasons for his/her decisions when appropriate. The judge maintained a neutral demeanor/expression while in court. The judge was open, clear, and transparent about how the rules of law were applied and how decisions were being made.

Observer comments:

Overall, on neutrality, I would score this judge as follows: 1
Inadequate

2
Substandard

3
Acceptable

4
Very good

5
Outstanding

Respect
Respect includes treating people well, that is, with courtesy and politeness, and showing respect for people’s rights. Providing people with information about what to do, where to go, and when to appear, all demonstrate respect for both those people and their right to have their problems handled fairly by the courts. Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review

2. How would you describe this judge’s respect for people and their rights?
Consider for example:
Yes

o o o o o o o o

The judge provided participants with specific information about what to do, where to go, and when to appear. The judge treated everyone with courtesy, dignity, and respect. The judge maintained decorum in the courtroom. The judge demonstrated appropriate consideration for the rights of all persons in the court. The judge helped interested parties understand decisions and what parties must do as a result. The judge used clear language when speaking to jurors, litigants, witnesses, and attorneys. The judge demonstrated respect for people’s time and acknowledged their patience as needed. The judge respected the time of the participants & understood the personal and financial costs they may be incurring to participate in court proceedings.

Observer Comments:

Overall, on respect, I would score this judge as follows: 1
Inadequate

2
Substandard

3
Acceptable

4
Very good

5
Outstanding

Trustworthiness
People infer whether they feel that court personnel, such as judges, are listening to and considering their views; are being honest and open about the basis for their actions; are trying to do what is right for everyone involved; and are acting in the interests of the parties and not out of personal prejudices. Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review

3. How would you describe this judge’s ability to earn trust?
Consider for example:
Yes

o o o o o o o

The judge was open, honest, and sincere about the basis for actions. The judge demonstrated an intention to do what is right for everyone involved. The judge acted in the interests of the parties without regard to personal prejudices. The judge demonstrated interest in the needs, problems, and concerns of participants. The judge listened carefully and impartially. The judge avoided impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The judge was prepared for the proceedings.

Observer Comments:

Overall, on trust, I would score this judge as follows: 1
Inadequate

2
Substandard

3
Acceptable

4
Very good

5
Outstanding

Voice
People want to have the opportunity to tell their side of the story in their own words before decisions are made about how to handle the dispute or problem. Having an opportunity to voice their perspective has a positive effect upon people’s experience with the legal system irrespective of their outcome, as long as they feel that the authority sincerely considered their arguments before making their decisions. Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review

4. How would you describe this judge’s skill at providing the participants a voice in the proceedings?
Consider for example:
Yes

o o o

o

The judge allowed participants to voice their perspectives/arguments. The judge demonstrated to the parties that their story or perspective had been heard. The judge behaved in a manner that showed the judge had fully considered the case as presented through witnesses, arguments, and documents before the court. The judge attended, where appropriate, to the participants’ comprehension of the proceedings.

Observer Comments:

Overall, on voice, I would score this judge as follows: 1
Inadequate

2
Substandard

3
Acceptable

4
Very good

5
Outstanding

Part II
Understanding that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission will ultimately recommend that the voters retain a judge or not, is there anything else you would like the commission to know about your courtroom observation experience? Consider for example:
• • • • whether you would feel comfortable appearing before this judge as a litigant, the organization and/or administrative efficiency of this judge’s court, the overall strengths and weaknesses of this judge’s performance, and anything else particularly notable about your courtroom observation experience, not already covered in the report.